Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Once again: Psychology studies the behaviour of conscious entities, not consciousness itself. It belongs in the arena of the social sciences, which study people and societies and their behaviour NOT the material world. The brain is demonstrably part of the material world.

OTOH The role of the natural sciences is to study the material world. So, unless you’re presenting a dualistic argument that ‘mind’ is a separate entity from the ‘material brain’, then ‘consciousness’ is firmly in the realm of the physical, natural sciences such as biology...hence my argument that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the material brain and nervous system.

Quote:

It is amazing that you have not understand yet that solipsism is not a dualism.
I have not seen any “argument” of yours about the “reducible” mental features. You only announce your particular beliefs.

I would be more convinced you were not arguing for 'dualism' if you had not repeatedly implied a dualistic separation between body and mind, e.g.: # 1293: “The problem of the relations between mind and brain is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one”. And: #1294: “there are a lot of books and articles and diverse theories about the relation between mind and brain there is a problem whether you want admit it or not”.

There is only a problem if you separate body and mind. There is no such separation.

__________________“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Really amazing! This whole series of articles talking about how consciousness works doesn't refer to consciousness! What about?

Originally Posted by Tassman

OTOH The role of the natural sciences is to study the material world. So, unless you’re presenting a dualistic argument that ‘mind’ is a separate entity from the ‘material brain’, then ‘consciousness’ is firmly in the realm of the physical, natural sciences such as biology...hence my argument that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the material brain and nervous system.

The solipsist denies that the “material world” exists. It is only an idea. Your argument is not valid for the solipsist because it starts from an idea —external world or matter— that he doesn’t accept. If you want argue against him you have to begin attacking his disbelief.

Originally Posted by Tassman

I would be more convinced you were not arguing for 'dualism' if you had not repeatedly implied a dualistic separation between body and mind, e.g.: # 1293: “The problem of the relations between mind and brain is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one”. And: #1294: “there are a lot of books and articles and diverse theories about the relation between mind and brain there is a problem whether you want admit it or not”.

The existence of a problem is not the solution of this problem. Materialist’s solution is that only material world exists. Solipsist’s solution is that only mental world exists. Materialism and solipsism are opposite kinds of monism; they are not dualisms.

If we are brains in a vat, then the statement "we are brains in a vat" refers not to actual physical vats but vat-dream vats. The statement would be false.

Only if we are not brains in a vat would the statement "we are brains in a vat" refer to actual physical vats.

Your/Putnam's argument begs the question because you assume that truth means correspondence with the thing as external thing. Solipsist can hold a different concept of truth. Internal consistence, for example. This is not strange. Neopositivists defend this concept of truth.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

When I was a student I had endless discussions with supporters of coherence theory. Neopositivists. Neopositivists are not solipsists, but they are first cousins. I can assure you they were tough guys.

That seems to be the consensus.
You might be one of few people who understand his argument and agree, I don't know.
I certainly don't understand it.*

What do you think it actually means?
I there really an experiment I can do to make sure I'm not a BIV?
How does the experiment work?

* Honestly I didn't really try. I just read enough to confirm that it does not pertain to what I was explaining.

NO! .... look;- as someone else remarked to David Mo "it's beginning took as if you are not arguing in good faith"! ... I quoted to you above the "Conclusion" paragraph from that article, which makes absolutely clear that Putnam's philosophical "proofs" have at the very least cast serious doubt on the validity of the BIV argument. Here again is the conclusion -

ConclusionThe brain-in-a-vat hypotheses are crucial for the formulation of skeptical arguments concerning the possibility of knowledge of the external world that are modelled on the Cartesian Evil Genius argument. We have seen that the BIV hypothesis may well be refutable, given semantic/content externalism and given the assumption that one has a priori knowledge of some key semantic properties of one's language (or, alternatively, a priori knowledge of the contents of one's mental states). Even if Putnamian arguments fail to rule out all versions of the brain-in-a-vat hypotheses, their success against the radical BIV hypothesis would be significant. Further, these arguments highlight a novel view of the relations between mind, language, and the external world.

What is said in the article is that Putnam showed with philosophical "proofs" that the basis assumption of saying "The BIV has the exact same experience as a real person", is proved wrong! Putnam showed why the BIV does NOT have the same experiences as a human brain in a body living the real world. It's not me who has to say that, I do not have to say that I agree with Putnam or with the articles author (I do not think that Philosophical "proofs" are ever worth much if anything at all) - I am just producing an article by a senior professorial academic philosopher who describes Putnam's "proofs" in detail, and who says that modern-day (as of 2002 revised in 2011) philosophers do now accept that Putnam's proofs against the BIV are probably correct, so that at the very least (according to the article) the BIV argument is now seriously in doubt ... and in particular it's in doubt because Putnam's proofs showed that the BIV cannot experience the same things as a human brain functioning normally in a living body.

As for you picking out parts of the article which talk about initial objections to Putnam's papers, what the article actually says that it was found that with some simplifying alterations to parts of Putnam's original "proofs", those initial objections were either removed, or else at least rendered dubious ... so that the final conclusion is the one that the articles author gave above, and that very clearly says that serious doubt has now been raised for the entire basis of the BIV argument, and it presents that as the current position now accepted by philosophy in general.

This thread is confusing because it is in the philosophy section but the subject "Science cannot explain consciousness" is in my opinion all about science and does not really involve philosophy.

Some "philosophy" enters in defining consciousness, which there have been many threads about and no satisfying conclusion in sight.
We should just adopt a circular definition. I propose "the human experience of I" and leave philosophy out of it. I don't mean that broadly, as in things you experience with your senses but what it feels like to be a human and conscious, an individual. Whatever science finds to explain "the human experience of I" is consciousness. I'll call it Cs.

From a philosophy perspective the "I" that is conscious, is the thing in control, the thing behind your eyes looking out at the world, using your senses, considering situations, making decisions and pulling the strings to make your body take action. I'll call it Cp.
It is not surprising that the human experience of Cs is the same as Cp.

There is confusion in this thread between what is being discussed and argued about, Cs or Cp
A Cs post answered, however carefully and correctly from a philosophy perspective, will be utterly unsatisfying. A science rely to a Cp argument won't make any sense.
Cp can never trust it's senses completely since they are secondhand, it might even be a solipsist. Cs evolved in my opinion because the world is real and having Cs gives us an edge.

There is a lot of science that shows disparities between Cs and Cp. A large part of the "I am in control and making conscious decisions before taking action" seems to be an illusion. Cs also seems to be to a large degree in "more than one mind" and possibly also an illusion.
I also believe there are many hints as to why we experience a Cp.

How about we distinguish clearly between the two and shift slightly to discussing the differences between Cs and Cp and what science has to say about Cs?

Just a suggestion, I feel this should be about science.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Really amazing! This whole series of articles talking about how consciousness works doesn't refer to consciousness! What about?

Psychologists do not tell us how consciousness arose; this is the province of natural science, not behavioural science. In psychology the existence of consciousness is assumed.

Quote:

The solipsist denies that the “material world” exists. It is only an idea. Your argument is not valid for the solipsist because it starts from an idea —external world or matter— that he doesn’t accept. If you want argue against him you have to begin attacking his disbelief.

AFAICT solipsism is an incoherent theory.

Quote:

The existence of a problem is not the solution of this problem. Materialist’s solution is that only material world exists.

There is no problem existing...not unless one regards body and mind as separate entities. There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism.

Quote:

Solipsist’s solution is that only mental world exists. Materialism and solipsism are opposite kinds of monism; they are not dualisms.

See above.

__________________“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Could you explain please.
True Solipsism, a real existing solipsist in a real "solipsist universe" might sound implausible*, but solipsism does not seem incoherent to me. I don't know the language of philosophy well though, it might have a specific meaning.

*It might not actually be more implausible than the real material universe imho.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

...so that the final conclusion is the one that the articles author gave above, and that very clearly says that serious doubt has now been raised for the entire basis of the BIV argument, and it presents that as the current position now accepted by philosophy in general.

I am surprised that you use the opinion of a philosophical article who considers "doubtful" "the strong" version of the brain in the vat argument -which is but a metaphor not strictly solipsist- in support of your categorical assertions that science proves that solipsism is false.

This is a non sense.

It would be more useful if we discuss Putnam's argument that is a clear petitio principi. See my comment above.

Psychologists do not tell us how consciousness arose; this is the province of natural science, not behavioural science. In psychology the existence of consciousness is assumed.

This is rigurously false. Have you seen the abstracts of the articles referenced? Many of them are about how different features of conscience arouse. Others about the relation mind-brain directly. They are psychological or philosophical articles. None of them is formulated in a physicalist language.

Originally Posted by Tassman

AFAICT solipsism is an incoherent theory.

Amen.

Originally Posted by Tassman

There is no problem existing...not unless one regards body and mind as separate entities. There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism.

It's curious that solipsism keeps coming up in these threads - it can only be applied after great effort and imagination, then once introduced, it takes great effort to get rid of it. Interesting because materialists keep bringing it up when solipism can only exist in a materialist framework.

Irrelevant, as I've explained. Have you understood what I said? Because from your answer you don't seem to have.

I'm sure you think they are clever, but I assure you neither of these questions even make sense. You don't seem to understand what I mean by "consistency" at all.

Perhaps I understand what you're saying, maybe not - - - I do not see how defining 'outside' the mind as that which is 'consistent', and defining 'consistent' as that which is 'outside' the mind constitutes a frame of reference, or is anything useful.

Perhaps I understand what you're saying, maybe not - - - I do not see how defining 'outside' the mind as that which is 'consistent', and defining 'consistent' as that which is 'outside' the mind constitutes a frame of reference, or is anything useful.

You don't think having a reliable standard to determine what's real and imagined to be useful?

(...)I assure you neither of these questions even make sense. You don't seem to understand what I mean by "consistency" at all.

Why? I think that my questions are very useful for our debate. Why do you think they have not any sense?

What do you mean by "consistence"?

(a) In Aristotelian logic: two or more statements are called consistent if they are simultaneously true under some interpretation .
(b) In modern logic: a set of statements is called consistent with respect to a certain logical calculus, if no formula ‘P & –P’ is derivable from those statements by the rules of the calculus; i.e., the theory is free from contradictions. (From The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)

This is totally consistent with the concept of truth as coherence that I have mentioned some comments above. Neopositivists defend (b).

I don’t know other concept of consistence but if you have a personal concept we need to know it.

NOTE: If you refuse to answer my questions the dialogue becomes impossible.

Why? I think that my questions are very useful for our debate. Why do you think they have not any sense?

Well I'm not good at creating definitions so I'll illustrate:

It's possible when you have a dream to have mutually-contradictory events occur, or to imagine impossible shapes, or to "feel" colour or other such nonsense. You can be in a room thinking about doing something, and then walk a short distance, suddenly find yourself in a different room and completing your task by doing something entirely different as if nothing happened. "Reality" is not like that. You can't have inconsistencies, and I challenge anyone to provide examples of those. My argument is that the consistency of things that we don't know come from our minds versus the inconsistency of things we know for a fact come from our minds is a very good and reasonable standard to use in determining what's real or not. Then we can actually test this assumption using things like science, and so far we've been 100% correct, it seems.

Quote:

NOTE: If you refuse to answer my questions the dialogue becomes impossible.

My argument is that the consistency of things that we don't know come from our minds versus the inconsistency of things we know for a fact come from our minds is a very good and reasonable standard to use in determining what's real or not.

We know that when we dream/hallucinate, it's not real, since our experiences don't conform to any sensible input received from out senses at the time, or to the laws of physics as we understand it.
We conclude the world is real and not the dream/hallucination, since our experiences, when awake, do conform to the input our senses are receiving and the laws of physics.
This makes sense to me, it's utterly sensible.

This is great for telling "fake" experiences from "real" experiences in a material universe. On the other hand, if you guys are still talking philosophy, it won't in any way convince a solipsist.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

The way I understand it, the solipsist's mind is partitioned.
One part represents the conscious mind ("brain" in the BIV) and the other an "unconscious" mind ("computer" in the BIV). Therefore to a solipsist "Belz...'s Test" will only distinguish between the two partitions of the same mind.

The solipsist believes that the "unconscious mind" "runs" on the laws of physics as we understand it. He does not deny the laws of science, or that they have a huge impact on what he experiences, only that they originate in a physical universe. He thinks they originate in his mind.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Call it what you will "external reality" or "uncontrollable part of the mind".

A solipsist is the equivalent of a religious person believing only he has a soul and that there is only one to go around.

a solipsist is a materialist (believing in consciousness as a local phenomenon or process) who makes the error in thinking that his/her local phenomenon is all there is, and there is no independent reality other than his/her local conscious processes. Solipsism can not exist in non materialist frameworks.

The solipsist's mind functions in such a way so as to exactly replicate the experiences that a mind in a material universe would have.
Or as the solipsist would say: "Your hypothetical, material universe, functions in such a way so as to exactly replicate the experiences of a solipsist? Seems unlikely."

IOW it's functionally materialism, but without the material (and with only one mind of course).
In a similar situation the solipsist is expected to react the same way as a materialist, like getting out of harms way for example.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

If we are brains in a vat, then the statement "we are brains in a vat" refers not to actual physical vats but vat-dream vats. The statement would be false.

Only if we are not brains in a vat would the statement "we are brains in a vat" refer to actual physical vats.

Your/Putnam's argument begs the question because you assume that truth means correspondence with the thing as external thing. Solipsist can hold a different concept of truth. Internal consistence, for example. This is not strange. Neopositivists defend this concept of truth.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

When I was a student I had endless discussions with supporters of coherence theory. Neopositivists. Neopositivists are not solipsists, but they are first cousins. I can assure you they were tough guys.

interesting, never occurred to me presupposing empirical reality to be a faulty premise

__________________Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

This is something I've wondered about before, can you create a "toilet mind", a mind thinking with a brain made of toilets?
IOW can you make a BIV, but with lots of toilets instead of a brain?
Will it have a mind?
Might YOU be one and not even know it?

Intellectually I have to say YES, but it feels so wrong.

I just googled "toilet mind brain analogy" and there does not seem to be anything specifically discussing this particular thought experiment.

I'm with Darat in believing the mind is a process. It should not matter what hardware the process is implemented on, only that the process is equivalent. An equivalent process must have an equivalent experience.

An automatic toilet that flushes when it's tank is full is perfect for this, since it is equivalent to a neuron. Toilets, like neurons have a threshold, a refractory period, an action potential and a resting potential.
In theory you should be able to exactly duplicate the wiring network of a brain with pipes and all the neurons with toilets. Your supercomputer would monitor all the "motor" pipes coming from the toilet brain and have "sensory" pumps feeding it water.

__________________"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

This is rigurously false. Have you seen the abstracts of the articles referenced? Many of them are about how different features of conscience arouse. Others about the relation mind-brain directly. They are psychological or philosophical articles. None of them is formulated in a physicalist language.

Again, psychology does not tell us how consciousness arose; this is the province of the natural sciences such as biology. “Biology is the science of life. Its name is derived from the Greek words "bios" (life) and "logos" (study). Biologists study the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution and distribution of living organisms”. Live Science.

OTOH In psychology the existence of consciousness is assumed. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Psychology as: “A scientific discipline that studies mental states and processes and behaviour in humans and other animals”.

Quote:

Where? What of your articles of faith?

Science idolatry is not science.

Recognising the role of science vis-à-vis metaphysics is not idolatry. Science is “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Oxford Dictionary.

__________________“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Even if you presented rock solid proof a real BIV is impossible, it will not change the argument/point.
The argument/point is theoretical.
There is NO real BIV in a thought experiment.

I have no idea what you are now talking about, and in the words of Sam Harris "what's more, I don't think you have either!" .

The so-called "BIV" argument of philosophy, is a word-argument; an argument about, and from, a construction in the selective use of language. That point is actually inadvertantly highlighted in that linked article (note how many times it has to talk about it's semantic nature and about what should be, or should not be, the meaning of the words that the argument prefers to use. It is also an argument that even within philosophy itself, has been shown to be if not actually flat-out wrong, then at least in serious doubt ... but far worse than any of that ...

... it is also an argument that has to begin with various unwarranted un-evidenced assumptions of the most fanciful kind, which in your language here, you tried to justify by avoiding the word "assumption" and saying instead it is "a given" ... well that's just yet another selective use of language in attempt to hide the fact that you are making assumptions, such as the assumption that a BIV (if that were even possible at all, and you certainly cannot show that it is) would experience the identical things that a human brain experiences in a real world body with real world surroundings ... when you write things like "that is a given", that is just a form of words used to obscure/hide the very obvious fact that it's actually an assumption on your part.

But apart from all those problems with the philosophical word-game known as "BIV", that entire scenario of a BIV is not in any case an example for solipsism (which is what you were presenting it as). In the "BIV" it is necessary to have an external reality in the first place. Whereas in solipsism (as insisted upon here by Larry, and then supported by yourself and David Mo) there can be no external reality.

If you want to believe that claims such as “BIV” or Solipsism might be true, then your very next thought ought to be the realisation that absolutely anything “might” be true! It might be true that the person who thinks they are an alien who has created a brain in Vat, is himself just experiencing an illusion in his own mind, so that he is not actually an alien, but just a deluded human (eg a deluded human philosopher), who does not have any BIV, but who is instead just dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise mentally inventing ideas that are taken from what is his actual real experience of real people, real brains, a sense of our real surroundings, a real exposure to alien stories in books etc., ... that are in fact all real parts of his own real world experience and his own real existence.

It's possible when you have a dream to have mutually-contradictory events occur, or to imagine impossible shapes, or to "feel" colour or other such nonsense. You can be in a room thinking about doing something, and then walk a short distance, suddenly find yourself in a different room and completing your task by doing something entirely different as if nothing happened. "Reality" is not like that. You can't have inconsistencies, and I challenge anyone to provide examples of those. My argument is that the consistency of things that we don't know come from our minds versus the inconsistency of things we know for a fact come from our minds is a very good and reasonable standard to use in determining what's real or not. Then we can actually test this assumption using things like science, and so far we've been 100% correct, it seems.

Your mistake: Your description is not different from the solipsist’s description: There are impressions that appear in the mind with regularity—what you call “consistence”. You call them “real” and the solipsist calls them otherwise —“wakefulness”, for example. Other impressions are not regular or have other rules. You call them “dream” and the solipsist too. Your descriptions are exactly the same. A sequence of impressions produce an idea; another sequence produces a different idea.
If your description is consistent, the solipsist’s would be too because it is the same. But you add an additional idea: the impressions you call “real” are produced by an external thing. And the solipsist replies: “I don’t know any impression of what you call real. You and I only have a set of regulated impressions. This is what you have said. Your idea is not a logical deduction for previous impressions neither. Therefore you have not any evidence of this external world. You are speaking of something that you don’t know. Your idea of external world is not a true idea, but a mere belief. An irrational belief".

Originally Posted by Belz...

That seems obvious.

If it is obvious, you ought to answer my previous questions or explain why you cannot do it. I supose that you are avoiding embarrassing questions.

Again, psychology does not tell us how consciousness arose; this is the province of the natural sciences such as biology. “Biology is the science of life. Its name is derived from the Greek words "bios" (life) and "logos" (study). Biologists study the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution and distribution of living organisms”. Live Science.

Again: Have you read the bibliography that I put in my previous comments? Yes or not? Be honest, please.

I would be grateful if you could bring us a biology article published in a biology journal on consciousness. I'm interested.

Originally Posted by Tassman

OTOH In psychology the existence of consciousness is assumed. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Psychology as: “A scientific discipline that studies mental states and processes and behaviour in humans and other animals”.

And what you think that consciousness is? A mental state.

Originally Posted by Tassman

Recognising the role of science vis-à-vis metaphysics is not idolatry. Science is “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Oxford Dictionary.

Idolatry is to make a god of a thing. Idolatry is to believe that science has an answer to every question and knows everything. Science has its limits as every human knowledge and there are many questions that science cannot answer. O.K.?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.